Books and articles about new religious movements
(NRMs) often present the latter as if no changes
whatsoever occurred within the movements with respect
to their relations to surrounding society (e.g.,
Haack, 1979; Mangalwadi, 1977; Needleman, 1978).
Nothing is further from the truth. In fact, several
(if not all) of the NRMs are subject to rapid change,
and any study which fails to recognize this state of
affairs is inadequate. Furthermore, the changes NRMs
undergo should be of particular interest to
sociologists, since they facilitate an understanding
of the role of these movements in today's pluralistic,
post-industrial society.

The present paper will attempt to examine change in
three religious or quasi-religious movements of Hindu
origin: Transcendental Meditation (TM), the
International Society of Krishna Consciousness
(ISKCON), and the Divine Light Mission (DLM). Although
other important aspects of change (such as
organizational ones) should be recognized, only two
will be considered here:

1) change in the degree of deliberate
divergence from the norms of the mainstream
society, i.e. - in the terminology of Wallis (1984)
- world-rejection, and
2) change of goals.

In the present paper, Wallis's (1984) conceptual
framework will be analysed in some detail . Goal
displacement, a concept utilized by Gross and Etzioni
(1985, pp. 9-27) for describing change within
non-religious organizations, economical as well as
political, will also be introduced and adopted in this
particular context.

Wallis's model:
critique and modification

When a NRM emerges, it relates to the surrounding
society in one way or another. It may criticize or
reject it, partly or wholly. It may also accept and
strengthen attitudes and behavioral patterns prominent
within the surrounding society. Every movement may, at
least theoretically, be estimated on a scale measuring
its degree of world-rejection/world-affirmation.

Wallis (1984) describes three types of religious
movements: world-rejecting, world-accommodating, and
world-affirming ones. A world-rejecting movement views
the prevailing social order as having departed from
God's prescriptions and the divine plan. The world,
according to this kind of movement, is evil, or at
least materialistic. It condemns modern urban society
and its values, particularly that of individual
success. Rather than pursuing a life of self-interest,
a world-rejecting movement typically requires a life
dedicated to "egolessness", which may take the form of
service to the movement or the guru, denying the
individual's own interests or needs. World-rejecting
movements quite often tend to be millenarian,
expecting the movement to sweep the world, and, when
everyone has become a member, or at least, when
members are a majority of the world's population, then
a new world-order will begin (Wallis, 1984, pp.
10-20).

The world-accommodating movement (ibid., pp. 35-39)
draws a clear distinction between the spiritual and
the worldly spheres. Although it may strive to
reinvigorate the individual for life in mainstream
society, it has few or no implications for how that
life should be lived. It thus accommodates to the
world, but it does not reject or affirm it.

The world-affirming movement (ibid., pp. 20-35) may
actually lack most of the features traditionally
associated with religious movements. It may have no
ritual, no official ideology, perhaps no collective
meetings whatsoever. It does not view the world
contemptuously; on the contrary, it may see it as
possessing highly desirable goals. It simply claims
that it has the means to enable people to unlock their
hidden potential, whether spiritual or mental, without
the need to withdraw from or reject the world.

As examples of world-affirming movements, Wallis
mentions est and TM, while ISKCON, the Unification
Church and Children of God are given as examples of
world-rejecting movements. Wallis obviously finds it
hard to find good examples of world-accommodating
movements among the NMRs. The only one he discusses at
length is the neopentecostal movement, which is of
Christian origin. The only non-Christian, new movement
he accepts as an example is Pak Subud, which he only
mentions in one sentence without further comment.

Although Wallis points out important distinctions
between movements, there are certain problems with his
model. The first and most serious objection on the
part of the present author is that he does not clarify
well enough the "spatial" relationship between the
three types of religious movements. He presents them
in the form of a triangular diagram, giving the
impression that their relationship to each other is
multidimensional. He places certain movements (Jesus
People, Meher Baba, and DLM) in the middle, suggesting
that they are in some way equally close to all three
types (ibid., p. 6, fig. 1). For this to be possible,
the model must be multidimensional, since equidistance
to three extremes requires at least
two-dimensionality.

On the other hand, he suggests that the three types
form a one-dimensional continuum, with world-rejecting
movements at one extreme, world-accommodating
movements in the middle, and world-affirming movements
at the other extreme (ibid., figs. 3 and 4 at pp. 80
and 83, see also p. 20). It is impossible to have it
both ways.

The problem seems to be partly that Wallis has been
influenced by Yinger's (1970) typology of sects
(acceptance, aggressive, and avoidance sects; see
ibid., fig. 2 at p. 7, with Yinger's typology
presented in triangular format). Wallis, in fact,
mentions explicitly that there are similarities
between his model and that of Yinger (ibid., pp.
9-10). Wallis would perhaps have been better off with
a one-dimensional model, since this is the way in
which he in fact generally treats his concepts.

Another complication is the concept of
world-accommodation. Although it is theoretically
clear what the concept stands for, it is by no means
obvious what it implies in practise. Firstly, Wallis
himself, as previously pointed out, has difficulties
in finding good examples of world-accommodating
movements. Secondly, if the latter are located in the
middle between the two extremes of world-rejection and
world-affirmation, an impression Wallis sometimes
seems to give (ibid., pp. 80-83), then the term is
unambiguous, but at the same time it becomes more or
less unnecessary as a concept. Wallis himself seems to
oscillate between the options of a one-dimensional and
a multidimensional model. I may not do him full
justice by this criticism, but this is undoubtedly the
impression obtained by the reader of his otherwise
excellent work.

Wallis's description of world-affirming movements
also poses some questions. He describes them as
typically lacking the features traditionally
associated with religion, such as a church, ritual,
and collective worship (ibid., 20-35). In fact, there
is no logical impediment to being a church
organization and being a world-affirming movement. The
most world-affirming religious movement we know of in
today's Western societies - the Christian churches and
their denominations - are very church-like indeed. The
examples Wallis gives of world-affirming movements
(est and TM) may have led him astray. What Wallis
describes are in fact the characteristics of what
Stark & Bainbridge (1978) have called client
cults. But it is by no means necessary for a
world-affirming movement to be a client cult - the
most typical ones are, as previously mentioned,
actually the established churches and denominations.

Wallis may, however, be right in claiming that most
of the new world-affirming religious movements have
the typical features of client cults. If this is so,
it is interesting in itself. It may have something to
do with the particular role of religion in the
pluralistic type of society we have today. This
question will be reconsidered in the final paragraphs
of this article.

Despite these critical comments, the present author
still considers Wallis's analysis extremely important
and perhaps the most valuable contribution to date
towards the understanding of change in NRMs. In the
following, his concepts of world-rejection and
world-affirmation will be adopted, with modifications,
for the analysis of change within TM, DLM, and ISKCON.
The concept of world-accommodation will be dropped,
and world-rejection and world-affirmation will be
treated as two extremes in a one-dimensional, bipolar
model.

Fig. 1. Fluctuations through time (1970-85) on the
dimension world-rejection/world-affirmation for TM,
DLM, and ISKCON.

Fig. 1. presents fluctuations through time on the
dimension world-rejection/ world-affirmation for TM,
DLM, and ISKCON. A word of caution is required: these
curves are naturally only very crude estimations of
major trends. The dimension may be impossible to
measure with exact quantitative methods. ISKCON and
DLM have so far been fairly hostile towards objective
scientific study conducted by outsiders, which makes
the distribution of questionnaires difficult. These
estimations are based on participant observation
during meetings of these movements, interviews with
key informants, and a thorough study of the
literature. Nevertheless, the interpretation may
always of course be subjected to debate.

Deviant norms of behavior, from the point of view
of mainstream society, are used as the indication of
high world-rejection. The behavior may consist of
deviant dress or hairstyle, a special language or
jargon incomprehensible to outsiders, unusual ways of
living, such as in ashrams or collectives,
non-traditional diets (e.g., vegetarian or Indian
food), and goals in life different from the usual
career orientated goals cherished within mainstream
society.

Change within
ISKCON

From this point of view, it may be concluded that
ISKCON has been very world-rejecting indeed throughout
most of the 70's, having deviant norms on all the
variables mentioned above. After the death of Srila
Prabhupada, the guru of ISKCON, in 1977, however,
things have greatly changed. Prabhupada had not given
clear directions about authority within the movement
after his own death. He had vaguely mentioned that
devotees might turn to his "godbrother" (=brother
disciple of his own guru) Sridar Maharaja in India for
spiritual direction. Some did that, but these were a
minority. Prabhupada had also, some years before his
death, established a Governing Body Commission (GBC),
consisting of 11 "gurus", all Westerners, who each
govern their own zone of the world. The movement is
threatened by a certain degree of fragmentation, since
the 11 gurus may have slightly different
interpretations of ideology and norms (Sjöblom,
in the present volume). Overall, there has been a
slight turn towards less world-rejection, although for
a large number of devotees, even this has not bean
enough. Obviously tired of alienation from
society-at-large, they want an even greater degree of
world-affirmation, and they do not conform to the
direction of the gurus. Many have moved out from the
temples and collectives. They dress conventionally,
although they are still vegetarians, chant the Hare
Krishna mantra, and consider themselves devotees.

Change within
DLM

DLM has shown much greater changes, and even
oscillations, on the dimension of
world-rejection/world-affirmation. Although never
quite as world-rejecting as ISKCON (it never for
instance adopted Hindu clothing or shaved heads), it
started off in the West in 1971 as a clearly
millenarian movement. The leader, Guru Maharaj Ji,
claimed that he was going to establish peace in the
world during his lifetime. There were many Hindu
traditions, such as arti and darshan, within the
movement, and most followers were vegetarians. Some,
but not all of the followers, who called themselves
premies ("lovers"), lived collectively in ashrams.
Meetings, satsangs, were held every evening.

In 1974, Maharaj Ji got married to a Westerner. The
marriage was not approved of by his mother and two of
his elder brothers, nor by many of his Indian
devotees. There was a split within the movement, with
all the Western disciples accepting Maharaj Ji's
authority, while only some of the Indian devotees did
so. It is obvious that it was also partly a question
of policy: Maharaj Ji wanted to "Westernize" the
movement. He disposed of many Hindu traditions, put
less emphasis on ashrams, organized the movement in a
Western fashion with a large headquarters, and made
serious attempts to become more accepted by mainstream
society. There was a strong change towards greater
world-affirmation, but some of these changes were not
really successful. His attempts to normalize relations
to society-at-large were not noticed by the press,
which continued to write negatively about the
movement. Since then, Maharaj Ji has avoided
publicity.

In 1976, Maharaj Ji declared that he felt that the
organization had come between his devotees and
himself, and he disposed of the headquarters
altogether. During the latter half of the 70's, the
movement clearly returned towards greater
world-rejection, although perhaps not reaching the
same level as in 1971-73. The millenarian ideology had
lost its credibility owing to a slowdown in the
expansion rate, and the millenarian jargon gradually
disappeared completely. Emphasis was placed on
devotion to the guru, ashram life was again
encouraged, and satsang meetings were arranged every
evening.

In 1980, Maharaj Ji took a new initiative: he
declared that he wanted to get rid of all the
"religious" aspects of the movement, in fact, he
wanted no movement whatsoever. All ashrams were
abolished, and people who had been living in them in
some cases for 10 years or more suddenly found
themselves back to normal life. He abolished all
satsang meetings. Divine Light Mission as an
organization was also abolished. Most followers
stopped being vegetarians, although to a greater
extent they continued the practice of meditation.
There are still meditation teachers who initiate
people into the meditation techniques known as
"Knowledge", and new followers are still gained. Since
there are no meetings, no ashrams, and in most towns -
even no centres, the nature of the movement has
drastically changed. Maharaj Ji does not call himself
a guru anymore, and he points out that he is not
perfect, but human.

The changes during the 80's were gradual and not so
swift as during the period 1974-76. The followers were
also slow to adapt to the changes requested. Although
Maharaj Ji still has a following of about the same
size as before, DLM has moved very close towards the
middle point between world-rejection and
world-affirmation.

Change within
TM

As Woodrum (1977) has pointed out, TM has gone
through several distinct phases. Two of these (a
"mystical" phase in the early 60's, and a "cosmic
consciousness" phase in the late 60's) will be
disregarded here, in order to limit consideration to
developments since 1970. It is evident, however, that
TM would have identified itself with a higher level of
world-rejection during the 60's than during the early
70's.

In the early 70's, TM came very close to the middle
point between world-rejection and world-affirmation.
It claimed not to be a religion, but a scientific
technique which brought, when practiced, a greater
capacity for relaxation and stress reduction, and
claimed to improve the creative intelligence of
practitioners. It focused its marketing strategy on
proving this by scientific studies (e.g., Wallace,
1970) of the beneficial consequences of meditation.

Outwardly, there was nothing to distinguish a TM
practitioner from other people: no special dress, or
unusual hairstyle; vegetarianism was not prescribed,
and hardly practiced, except by a minority. A certain
"jargon" was, however, prevalent within the movement.

From 1976 onwards, the movement was radicalized. It
introduced its "World Government", clearly indicating
its intention of reforming the world, although by
peaceful means. It started its well-known siddhi
programme, teaching people how to levitate and acquire
other supernatural powers. The reason for this change
will be discussed later on in this paper.

The source of
change: The leader or the followers?

When change in the degree of world-rejection occurs
within a religious movement, it may be due to either
of the following two sources:

1) a change in attitude in the
leadership,
2) a change in attitude among the followers.

Regarding DLM, it seems that the relatively large
oscillations in that particular case are mainly due to
direction from above, i.e., change within the
leadership. Obviously, the movement towards greater
world-affirmation during 1974-6 was a conscious policy
in order to attract other people besides drop-outs
from the Establishment. The greatest spokesman for
this policy, however, was Maharaj Ji's right hand at
the time, Bob Mishler. In 1976, he was sacked, and
Maharaj Ji took total control of all organizational
aspects. The turn towards world-affirmation during the
80's was, on the other hand, instigated by Maharaj Ji
himself. It was also, however, a response to real
needs felt by the lay (non-ashramite) followers, who
were becoming increasingly middle-aged, with families
and responsible jobs. Ashram inhabitants, on the other
hand, were slow to respond to the suggestion to
abandon the ashrams and satsang meetings. The cause
for the latter transformation may thus be described as
a mixture of change within the leader and among the
followers.

Regarding ISKCON, the sources of change seem to
have been predominantly within the followers: When
Srila Prabhupada was still alive, he was driving a
strict, orthodox hinduistic line, leaving little room
for ambiguity. The Western lifestyle was considered
decadent, and the main reason for man's unhappiness.
However, after his death, the pressure from mainstream
society seems to have forced his followers towards
greater world-affirmation, especially in the absence
of strong, directive leadership.

In the case of TM, changes of direction seem to
have been mainly outlined by the leadership. The
reason for this may be sought in the fact that TM
primarily is a client cult (Stark & Bainbridge,
1978), and the consequences of this fact will be
discussed in more detail in the section on goal
displacement.

Regression
towards the mean of social norms

An examination of the historical development of
religious movements suggests that the most common
direction of change in the long run (excluding short
term oscillations) is towards greater acceptance and
affirmation of the world. This phenomenon is well
known within sociology, ever since Niebuhr (1929), and
it has often been alluded to as the process of
denominalization, in some cases as
institutionalization. Talking of non-Christian
religious movements, however, the term
denominalization does not sound applicable.
Institutionalization, on the other hand, refers to
organizational features of the movement, but not to
normative ones. The question of affirmation or
rejection of the world is normative to its nature. If
one wishes to stress the fact that the change concerns
norms, one could perhaps use the tern,
renormalization. This, however, implies that a person
has at one point been accepting certain norms, then
rejected them, but later started to accept them again.
It is not necessarily true that sectarians have
initially accepted the norms of mainstream society
although this is perhaps most usually the case - they
may in fact have rejected them all from the beginning.

A comparison can be made with the psychological
concept of regression towards the mean, describing the
statistical fact that children to parents who are
extremely high or low on any normally distributed
property, such as height or intelligence, tend to be
less extreme than their parents (Krech et al., 1982,
p. 754). A parallel may be drawn to the development of
religious movements, such as sects. First generation
sectarians usually hold strong convictions: they have
joined the sect by their own free will, while second
generation sectarians are born into the movement, and
are likely to move in the direction of the mean of the
norms of mainstream society (Yinger, 1970, p 266 ff.).

In fact, a change towards the mean of social norms
may occur already within the first generation
sectarians, as they become older and reach middle age,
especially if they joined the sect as relatively
young. If the sect cannot offer job opportunities to
its members, the latter will have to spend
considerable time together with nonmembers in the
context of their work, and friction between
contradictory norms will occur. Besides this, the
plausibility structure supporting the sect's ideology
may be damaged due to, e.g., prophesies or other
claims which were not fulfilled, and all of this is
likely to decrease fervor. It is thus a reasonable
prediction that ten year old members of almost any
religious movement (not living in isolation from the
rest of the society) tend to be less devoted to its
cause than new members.

It is important to emphasize that a regression
towards the mean of social norms is by no means a
necessity in all cases. If a religious movement
succeeds in isolating its members from
society-at-large, for instance by establishing
alternative societies, a high degree of
world-rejection may be maintained for long periods of
time. For the Amish people, as well as for the
Laestadian Christians in Northern Finland, it has been
possible to retain a high degree of deviant social
norms for generations.

The friction between the movement's social norms
and those of mainstream society may also lead to
splitting or fragmentation within the movement. One
part of the membership may want to become
world-affirming, while others wish to preserve a high
degree of world-rejection. Such a case can be observed
within the latest developments in ISKCON, after the
death of Srila Prabhupada.

Goal
displacement

A concept which may help in shedding additional
light on change within NRMs is that of goal
displacement. It was coined by Gross & Etzioni
(1985, pp. 9-27) when they wanted to describe a
particular type of change in non-religious
organizations, economical as well as political. The
phenomenon of goal displacement was described much
earlier by Mischels (1911) in analyses of change
within German trade unions, although he did not use
this particular concept.

Goal displacement becomes opportune when a movement
becomes dissatisfied with its established goal,
although the movement does not want to dissolve
itself, since it has already gained momentum as a
functioning entity. It is, if nothing else, in the
interest of its leadership that it continues to exist.

The reasons why the movement's goal needs to be
changed may vary - the most obvious being that the
goal does not seem to be realistic, or that it does
not feel attractive any longer. As an example, we may
choose the development of the social democratic
parties in Europe during this century. To begin with,
their goal was the socialization of all private
companies and the abolishment of capitalism, not
through revolution, as the communists suggested, but
by democratic means. Today, the idea of having only
state owned companies in a nation does not seem very
attractive. Social democratic parties in Europe have
over the years silently abolished the idea of
socializing all private companies, although the
principle may still be written in their official party
programmes. Now, they try instead to improve the
conditions of poor people by other means, such as
progressive taxation, extensive social security and
educational programmes. One goal has been displaced by
another.

Goal displacement becomes particularly necessary
when the survival of the organization becomes more
important than the original goal it was established to
obtain. A restaurant may start with the intention of
offering only vegetarian food. After a few years,
however, it may turn out that this policy does not
pay. The owners may be economically involved with
debts and interest to pay, and there may also be
emotional involvement. The original goal may seem less
important than the survival of the restaurant. They
may, accordingly, decide to start offering other kinds
of food besides vegetarian, in order for the
restaurant to survive.

When the NRMs are examined, processes of goal
displacement may easily be discovered (cf. fig. 2).
DLM, for instance, during its early years in the West,
had clearly millenarian features, proclaiming that
Guru Maharaj Ji was the savior who would establish
peace in this world during his lifetime. After the
unsuccessful programme in the Houston Astrodome in
1973, and the crises within the movement after Maharaj
Ji's marriage in 1974, the millenarian aspects were
diminished, and they disappeared completely in the
late 70's. The focus turned towards the establishment
of individual rather than world peace (Björkqvist
1982).

Goal displacement is even more obvious within TM.
In the late 60's, TM recruited from the youth counter
culture, the drop outs. Large numbers of these people
were following the example of the Beatles, who had
become practitioners of TM, and Hindu philosophy and
meditation came into vogue. The goal towards which the
TM movement claimed to strive, or the product it
offered to provide, was "cosmic consciousness", a
famous concept in the late 60's. Cosmic consciousness
was something the youth counter culture had been
trying to obtain by the help of mind expanding drugs
such as LSD. Meditation was regarded as another, safer
and more natural, way of getting "high".

Fig. 2. Examples of goal displacement during the
period 1970-85 within two new religious movements of
Hindu origin: TM and DLM.

After the well-known dissertation of Wallace
(1970), which suggested that meditation may indeed
have beneficial physiological effects, the TM movement
changed its jargon. In the hope of recruiting a larger
following from other strata of society, i.e. from
people with faith in science, it started to encourage
scientific research on TM. It presented as its goal
the offering of products such as relaxation, reduction
of stress, and creative intelligence (Woodrum, 1977).
Whether this was a case of actual, or only quasi, goal
displacement is open to debate. There is good reason
to believe that an inner core of the movement actually
had more spiritual goals all the time (e.g., WaIlis,
1984, p. 94).

In the mid-70's, TM made another turn, this time
towards greater world-rejection. It established a
"World Government" of its own, with ten ministeries.
It began its famous siddhi programme, claiming that it
would teach people to levitate and to acquire other
supernatural powers. This was another case of goal
displacement.

The case of TM's twist towards greater
world-rejection requires further explanation, since it
runs counter to the usual developmental trend of
religious movements, i.e. that of conventionalisation
and reformalisation. If we examine it in terms of
product selling and marketing, it makes sense,
however. In the late 60's, TM tried to reach (sell its
products to) the youth counter culture. A certain kind
of rhetoric was used. In the early 70's, while most
other NRMs of Hindu origin still recruited from that
particular stratum of society, TM tried to reach
customers from the Establishment, such as doctors,
lawyers, and scientists.

What is significant when change within TM is
compared with change within DLM and ISKCON is that TM
has always changed in search of customers, while the
other two have changed basically because their
followers and/or leadership have changed their
lifestyle or attitudes. This is extremely interesting,
but also intriguing. Why is it so? The explanation
offered here as the most probable one is that TM has
always been a client cult, according to Stark's &
Bainbridge's (1978) classification, with loose
membership. It is actually wrong to talk about
membership at all, except for an inner core of devoted
followers (meditation teachers) of Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi. TM has only clients, i.e. people who buy the
product, learn to meditate, or buy the siddhi
programme, and then go on with their own life. In
order to flourish, TM always has had to look for new
customers, whereas DLM and ISKCON - at least during
the 70's - had distinct members or disciples, who
devoted themselves to the movement. They were cult
movements, according to the classification system of
Stark & Bainbridge (1978).

Change in TM and
the Stark & Bainbridge theory of
religion

Bainbridge & Jackson (1981) have analysed the
radicalization of TM in the late 70's`in accordance
with the Stark & Bainbridge (1978) theory of
religion. This theory suggest that when an
organization promises natural rewards, but fails to
provide them, it promises supernatural compensation
instead. This seems to fit, at least superficially,
the data for TM, but it does not necessarily fit with
all the facts. Did TM really fail? It promised
relaxation, better life satisfaction, etc. There is a
large amount of research showing that TM in fact
managed reasonably well in improving the life quality
of those people who took up meditation seriously (see
Orme-Johnson, 1977, for a collection of scientific
papers on the effects of TM. There has been criticism
of this kind of studies, such as that of Staal, 1975,
pp. 106 113, but the positive effects of meditation
can hardly be altogether denied).

The problem in the case of TM is that once the
product is sold, the customer does not come again. He
already has it. However, he may come again to bay a
new product from the firm, such as the siddhi
programme. He returns, not because TM is a failure,
but because he has at least some trust in the movement
and likes the meditation technique. Simultaneously,
while old customers were attracted by a new product,
TM also appealed to new potential customers with an
interest in supernatural matters.

Stark (1981) has analysed Synanon's transformation
from an encounter group with the goal of
rehabilitating drug addicts into a religious movement
in its own right, in the same way as Bainbridge &
Jackson (1981) analysed TM's radicalization in the
late 70's. The explanation is epistemologically very
problematic. Again, it may seem superficially to fit
the facts (Wallis, 1986, p. 96, claims that it does
not); but even if it did, it still does not support
the general model of the Stark-Bainbridge theory of
religion, or its applicability in this particular
case. There must be literally hundreds of
rehabilitation centres for drug abusers, utilizing
encounter group techniques, spread al! over the world.
Some of them have probably been failures, and others
perhaps successful. If the explanation Stark suggests
is correct, why have all the failures not become
religious movements? Proving one case does not prove
very much.

This does not imply that the basic principles of
the Stark-Bainbridge theory of religion are
necessarily wrong: The present author agrees with the
idea that human beings are reward seekers by nature,
and when the natural rewards necessary for a
harmonious life become impossible to obtain, man looks
for supernatural compensations. It does not follow
from this however that the failure of non-religious
organizations automatically turns them into religious
movements. A turn towards religiosity is only one
possible outcome of many, and it is naturally of great
interest to investigate why some organizations choose
this solution, while others do not. Other factors
besides failure must certainly be found. One such
factor is perhaps the personality of the leader: one
leader may be supernaturally inclined, while others
are not; additional factors may be context bound,
varying greatly from one situation to another.

Final
remarks

Is it possible to predict anything about the future
direction of TM, DLM, and ISKCON?

It has been stated above that the most likely
direction of change is that towards greater
world-affirmation. If a movement wishes to maintain a
high degree of world-rejection, it must then also
adopt an isolationist policy, i.e., it must create
alternative sub-societies, collectives or the like,
and preferably create work opportunities for its
members so that they will not have to experience the
friction of diverging norms in daily contact with
nonmembers. None of the three movements in question
seems, at the moment of writing (1988), to be pursuing
this kind of policy.

ISKCON is at a critical stage. It is possible that
one branch, or some of its subgroups, will attempt to
maintain a relatively high degree of world-rejection,
while the major part of the membership is moving
rapidly towards renormalization. ISKCON is not getting
very many new followers at the moment. Originally, in
the late 60's and the early 70's, it recruited from
the youth counter culture, which consisted of people
who did not very much mind, or were perhaps even
attracted by, its high degree of world-rejection.
Today, there is no longer any counter culture to
recruit from, and the yuppies of the 80's are not very
likely to shave their heads and go chanting in the
streets. If ISKCON chooses a lower profile, closer to
the middle point on the dimension of
world-rejection/wold-affirmation, it may be able to
recruit a new following.

ISKCON's problem is also very much an
organizational one, because of the death of Srila
Prabhupada. It is now governed by the GBC (see above),
consisting of 11 "gurus" with additional members. If
it manages to solve its authority problem, and focus
future policy on respectability and world-affirmation,
without losing its exclusivity, it may have a chance
to survive and become what Yinger (1970, pp. 266-273)
has called an established sect.

DLM (which is not called DLM anymore, although the
name is retained here for the sake of
comprehensibility) has changed enormously during the
80's from what it was during the late 70's. It has
still retained many of its old hard core members, but
these now tend to live a "normal" life. Since there
are no meetings, or special communal activities, old
members do not meet very much. New people are still
being initiated into the meditation techniques -
according to what by the present author considers a
reliable source of information, 7,000 in the West and
14,000 in India (within the fraction loyal to Maharaj
Ji) were initiated during 1986. This sounds large, but
since there is no formal organization, it is
impossible to estimate how many of these actually
practise meditation regularly. DLM has, as a matter of
fact, almost changed into what Bainbridge & Stark
(1978) calls a client cult, with clients or customers
rather than followers. The new people it attracts are
predominantly middle-aged, and not young, as was the
case in the 70's.

Whether this trend will continue is impossible to
say, although it seems likely at the moment. DLM has
nevertheless been characterized by swift oscillations
before, and matters depend very much on the personal
development of the leader, Maharaj Ji. He is a
charismatic person, and very much in charge. The
present trend may be regarded as a "sound" development
in comparison with earlier phases of the movement. It
is likely to attract some new followers, since it
gives the individual a great degree of freedom to live
his or her own life. Today's follower or client is
not, however, likely to be strongly involved or
dedicated as was the case previously in the movement.

TM is, as mentioned, in a phase of higher
world-rejection than in the early 70's. The present
author has doubts about whether the siddhi programme
will be successfull, since customers will in the long
run become dissatisfied if they do not learn how to
levitate as was promised. TM has previously been
characterized by frequent cases of goal displacement.
Such changes may also occur in the future. TM has
proved to be a flexible, well organized movement. It
has a functioning economy, has established
universities of its own, and is rather dependent more
on the technique than on the guru. It therefore has a
better chance of avoiding crises, such as the death of
the guru, than ISKCON and perhaps also DLM. The latter
is still, regardless of its present high
world-affirmation, very dependent on its leader.

An interesting fact is that two of these three
movements (TM and DLM) are at the moment primarily
client cults. This may be the reflection of a major
trend within NRMs today, which also seems
understandable from the sociological point of view. In
the large cities of Europe and USA, I have noticed
that sect-like NRMs, so frequent during the 70's, seem
to be diminishing. They also recruited followers from
the counter culture, which was in itself
world-rejecting.

Today, the counter culture has largely disappeared,
and a "yuppie" lifestyle is now prevalent among young
people. At the same time, there is an upsurge of
alternative therapies, self-development techniques
etc., which one may learn without dedicating one's
whole life to a guru. Client cults definitely seem to
be more vogue than sects at the moment. Ideologically,
it is the "cult of man" (Westley, 1978) rather than
the cult of God which has wind in the sails.

It has often been claimed that in the pluralistic,
post-industrial society of today, religion has been
increasingly "privatised", i.e. moved from the public
into the private sphere (Björkqvist, Holm &
Bergbom, in the present volume). People have the
possibility of choosing their religion in the same way
as they choose what clothes to wear or what restaurant
to go to. In present day society, religion is not only
becoming a private matter, but as a consequence of
this, it has also to large extent become a product,
which can be bought and sold. In this kind of society,
the client cult type of movement fits in very well, as
long as it has something to offer. In this context
too, competition may wipe the board of unsuccessful
enterprises. If movements manage to find their own
ecological niche, i.e. find something to offer to at
least a subgroup of society, they may survive.

References

Bainbridge, William S. & Daniel H. Jackson
1981 The rise and decline of Transcendental
Meditation. In Bryan R. Wilson (ed.), The social
impact of new religious movements. New York: Rose of
Sharon Press, pp. 135-58.